The Life of Jesus Critically Examined

to the truth of the Gospel history can be attained in no other way than by acknowledging, on the basis of Strauss's criticism, that our previous knowledge is no knowledge at all." But here we come upon the limits of the criticism of Strauss: it brought home to men the fact of their lack of knowledge, but it did not conduct them to the required new and positive knowledge. (No analysis of documents) X This Strauss was unable to do, because he offered a critique of the Gospel history only, without a critique of the documents which form the sources of this history.

In these words, Baur has accurately described the main defect of Strauss's book. When Strauss drew from the discrepancies and contradictions of the various narratives of the Gospels the conclusion that they have all alike little credibility, the conclusion was intelligible enough in reply to the ingenious artifices of the traditional harmonists Theologians who sought to "harmonize" or reconcile contradictions between the different Gospels., who maintained that, in spite of the contradictions, the evangelists were all alike worthy of credit. But really, this line of procedure on the part of Strauss conformed as little as that of the harmonists to the principles of strict historical inquiry. These principles require us to examine the relative value of the various sources with reference to their age, the situation, the character, the interests, and the aims of their author; to assign accordingly to one account a higher measure of credibility than to another; and so, by distinguishing between what is better and what is not so well attested, to make out what is probable and reach the original matter of fact. It is true that Strauss made some advance towards such a differentiation of the relative value of the Gospel narratives, particularly with reference to the John (higher inferior historical value of the Johannine Referring to the Gospel of John. in com-